Talk:Michael E. Mann

Template:Community article probation

Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion

I've twice removed portions of a discussion from this page because it was being used to promote opinions about the subject matter, rather than discuss the content of the article. Please be aware that Wikipedia is not the place for propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, opinions on the merits of the subject matter, nor for scandal mongering or gossip. --TS 11:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

How dare you accuse others of what you so clearly practice, TS. 173.168.129.57 (talk) 06:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

To unregistered user at domain:173.168.129.57 First of all register otherwise no one will take you seriously. Secondly, TS is absolutely right.Bill Heller (talk) 02:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Michael Mann received over $500,000 from stimulus spending

I propose adding that Michael Mann received $541,184 in stimulus money in June 2009. In fact I don't see any discussion s on this here so I'm going to add it, and if anyone disagrees we can discuss why here. JettaMann (talk) 19:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Why is this relevant? -- ChrisO (talk) 19:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Because this is the article about Michael Mann, and we're supposed to include noteworthy information about him here. Receiving over half-million taxpayer money is pretty noteworthy. JettaMann (talk) 19:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I say add it.Bill Heller (talk) 02:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

That is a seriously warped story. What's so weird about a scientist receiving a government grant? The story seems to have been written from a press release from an organisation for people with very weird ideas. Needless to say that is in no way a reliable source. They're barking mad. --TS 19:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

JettaMann, you may have overlooked the fact that the content you want to include (a) comes from a blog (specifically Newsbusters, from which the Murdochised WSJ seems to be lifting content for some reason - its origins are disguised by the attribution to the Media Research Center, the outfit behind Newsbusters) and (b) it's an opinion piece and a highly polemical one at that. He was funded for "his involvement in an international attempt to exaggerate and manipulate climate data in order to advance the myth of manmade global warming" - oh really? You have to do better than that. The source is garbage and unusable for any Wikipedia article, let alone a BLP. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, I'm going to add it, and if anyone disagrees we can discuss why here is wrong: (a) it would have been far better discussed *first* - are you in a hurry? and (b) the second part should have read please remove it if you disagree. Please do *not* attempt to imply a burden on editors removing material - it won't work, but it will irritate William M. Connolley (talk) 23:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I can see William M. Connolley is indeed irritated - a full stop would have worked wonders there. ;-) Seriously though, as WP:BLP says, "The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material. Therefore, an editor should be able to demonstrate that it complies with all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines." Where material is likely to be contentious, as this was always going to be, it would have been better discussed first. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

This is quite an over-reaction in my opinion. I added a fact that is backed up by a referenced link to the WSJ, which has a stellar record for accuracy. Wikipedia certainly doesn't have a problem with links to the WSJ. If you think the information is too biased, here's a different link: I don't know if you guys are all millionaires or something, but half a million in grant money from the Federal stimulus plan seems noteworthy to me.JettaMann (talk) 20:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You added an Editorial/Op-Ed, and Opinion articles are certainly is something that Wikipedia in general has a problem with on BLP articles. Half a million dollars in a research grant isn't very notable, and it doesn't go to Mann personally (you do know that - right?), it is for research from 2009-2011 for 3 researchers. I have to say btw. that i doubt if this is from any "stimulus" package - since normally such grants are advertised up to a year in advance[1] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, part of the stimulus money was short-circuited to already applied-for research projects with a strong evaluation, but no budget. So its not impossible. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not even an op-ed. It's a post from the Newsbusters blog which the WSJ has reposted for some reason. The second paragraph makes its origins clear, as does the attribution to Newsbusters' parent organisation: "As NewsBusters reported on November 28..." -- ChrisO (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually it turns out to be even worse sourced than I thought. It appears to come from the 9/11 Truther blog PrisonPlanet.com - see [2] for the original article. God only knows why the WSJ has chosen this as a source for its own website. Evidently Murdoch has driven it off the cliff faster than I had thought. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

So it is your contention that the $541,184 figure is incorrect? I highly doubt that the WSJ didn't do some checking on this, and so far I haven't seen a retraction. It's been many days and Mann could have refuted this by now if it was incorrect. JettaMann (talk) 17:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm saying that we don't know if it's right or wrong, since the source is a crank outlet. A post from a nutjob blog doesn't somehow become usable by being laundered through the website of the WSJ. As for "why hasn't Mann refuted it", have you seen the number of claims directed against him from anti-science cranks? If he spent his time trying to rebutt them all he'd never get anything else done. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Here we go, absolute proof from the NSF listing the grant to Michael Mann. Let's post it. JettaMann (talk) 16:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The figure is correct (its on Mann's CV). As for why he hasn't "refuted it" - let me ask you: "Have you stopped beating your wife yet". Refuting lends legitimacy. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not even sure its relevant -- its almost like saying that Mann enjoys going to the Dunkin Donuts on College Avenue... so what? At least my two cents. jhe_iv (talk) 02:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems almost to be an attempt to claim guilt by association - since the stimulus is a right-wing bogeyman (let's not mention Bush's role, eh?), than obviously Mann's allegedly receiving funds from it is a Bad Thing. I can see no real reason to report this other than an attempt to discredit Mann. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Have to agree with ChrisO here. I infer the interest in including this fact is to imply in some way that Mann has a financial conflict of interest. If so, that's inappropriate. If Mann's work were publicly criticized on that basis in reliable sources, noting that wouldn't necessarily violate WP:BLP... but even then, given that Dr. Mann is perfectly entitled to apply for and receive legal government grants for his work, I'm not sure even that is noteworthy. --DGaw (talk) 22:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

No, nothing is inferred. That's in your head. How can a fact be either "right wing" or "left wing"? It's just a fact, and a very notable one at that. JettaMann (talk) 16:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The grant was funded by the National Science Foundation. The fact that the right wing does not want science funded is not news, and is not an appropriate topic for this article. Mann has had many grants, this one is not special. -Atmoz (talk) 23:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Any controversy regarding this has nothing to do with the "right-wing" or "nut jobs" or whatever other adjectives you and a few others a throwing out there to denigrate anyone that would disagree with you. The story is that the stimulus funds were supposed to go towards job creation and retention, and from the looks of it, it is hard to see how this would fall under either. Now I am not saying it belongs, but it would be nice if the dicussion did not turn into absurd strawman arguments that the right doesn't want science, which is to say the least just plain stupid. Arzel (talk) 01:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Researchers are workers too, with families to feed. But I suggest that it was unwise and short-sighted to turn this into a partisan bickerfest. There may well be some local political peculiarities at work here but the main point is that the WSJ piece was picked up from some weird conspiracy-minded subculture or other. It's worrying that a usually reliable newspaper would do that, but not worth losing much sleep over. If they want to publish nonsense, it's their funeral. --TS 01:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The figure they cite has been confirmed, and it's up on the National Science Foundation website (link provided above). So I don't understand how you are saying it's nonsense and their funeral. The WSJ was correct as they usually are. JettaMann (talk) 16:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

There is just one problem with your argument.. no one to this point has disputed the amount or that there was a grant. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the problem is that, for the conspiracy-minded, the mere existence of this grant is proof of some horrible and nasty conspiracy to do something or other unspeakable. To the rest of the world, of course, it's just a research grant. Nobody who does not speak the language of conspiracy theory as a native has a hope of understanding what the conspiracy theorists are on about. --TS 21:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about UPenn, but AFAIK most US research universities immediately skim 50-60% off the top for overhead (which includes everything from lab rooms to office heating, computers, and secretaries). The rest will pay 2 PostDocs for two years or so - unless some expensive equipment is included. This is a very ordinary grant - I'm sure Mann has had several similar ones in his career, as has any reasonably successful established researcher. It's entirely non-notable ("Bob the carpenter bought a hammer"). BTW, are you aware of Talk:Global_warming/FAQ Q14?--Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Tony, whether or not conspiracy-minded people will think 'this thing or the other thing' is irrelevant. We're not here to interpret things for people. We're just here to present the facts. What they do with these facts is beyond our control and we certainly not going to hide facts from people because we are worried what they will do with those facts. This isn't the USSR, it's Wikipedia.JettaMann (talk) 18:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

That isn't how it works. Scientists apply for and receive government grants. If we focused on a particular grant without good reason that would be interpretation, which is covered by the original research and neutral point of view policies. If some people have their own reasons for finding it extraordinary that a scientist received a government grant, they're welcome to try to convince the world at large that it is significant. If they succeed (and to be honest, doing so would require a revolution in attitudes to science funding) then we'll routinely report these "extraordinary" occurrences. Meanwhile we don't, because it would be silly. --TS 18:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing you are one of the few people on the planet who does not find it interesting or notable that he received over half-mill from the stimulus fund. Tell you what, Tony. Let's put it up there in the article and see if anyone else (not the usual people here) object to this information. If we see large and general objections to this from people *other than* the usual group, then perhaps you have cause. But my feeling is independent Wikipedia readers and editors won't have a problem with this being there and will probably find it interesting. Lets take our discussion out of the hypothetical theoretical and let the results speak for themselves. JettaMann (talk) 16:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The half-million dollars that seems to be so impressive to you is actually the market price of my small, very cramped middle-terrace house in East London. I've been trying to explain to you why--at least with that sourcing--this isn't going to make it into the article. As I don't have any axe to grind on this, I'll just unwatch this page and let you see for yourself that I'm not the barrier to acceptance of that material. --TS 17:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The gullible, ill-informed and conspiracy-minded might find it "interesting or notable" if it's presented stripped of any context, which is how it's been presented by the anti-science contingent, but that would be a mistaken impression. To show that it is "interesting or notable" one would have to do what the anti-science mob have conspicuously failed to do: (1) demonstrate that the source of the funding is in any way unusual or different to how other scientists have been funded; (2) demonstrate that the amount is in any way unusual; (3) demonstrate that the fact of the funding is in any way unusual. As others have pointed out on this page, "scientist gets funding from government" is commonplace. The fuss made over this seems to be a very crude attempt to elicit a Pavlovian reaction from unthinking right-wingers: stimulus BAD! Mann BAD! Mann + stimulus VERY BAD! It really is at that level of demagogic nonsense. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

That's really quite a warped view on this information. Again, facts are not left wing or right wing, facts are just facts. And again, what people choose to do with the information and how they interpret it isn't really up to us. We just present the facts, we don't interpret facts for Wikipedia readers. JettaMann (talk) 21:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

But the choice of which facts to present is up to us. We present the relevant facts, not irrelevancies ginned up by demagogues to stir up the rubes. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I really don't know how to respond to that. I think there are very few people out there who think it is irrelevant that Mann received a large grant of Federal Stimulus money which will be paid for by the tax payer. People tend to find it very relevant when other people spend their money. JettaMann (talk) 19:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

In that case I suggest you either find, say, 10 articles of scientists in which ordinary grants are listed, or you try to add some ordinary grants to 10 other articles, just to show some precedent. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with your methodology that each article must have a cookie-cutter set of lists and information. Some articles have different requirements and different points of emphasis compared to others. The reason this piece of information is relevant here is because people are naturally wondering where the money comes from to fund scientists like Michael Mann, and how much do they receive? As it turns out, it's the NSF, which ties in nicely to other wikipedia pages. We can also link this statement to the Grant (money) Wikipedia page. You often hear AGW people throwing out the accusation that so-and-so must be on the oil payroll and oil money is making it lucrative to oppose AGW theory. This is bunk of course, as there is a tiny fraction of the funding available to skeptics compared to the generous tax-payer government grants. This piece of information, along with the source of the grant money and the dollar figure, is a very relevant piece of information about this scientist. (Although I do agree that it would be nice for all scientists in Wikipedia to have a list of their grant dates and grant values, I just don't have much say in that, and the information is likely spotty. But it would be a nice ideal.) JettaMann (talk) 15:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any rebuttals to my last comment. I also note that if you look up the Competitive Enterprise Institute and others it seems to have an emphasis on where the funding comes from with dollar figures, so there is precedent for this type of information belonging in Wikipedia articles. JettaMann (talk) 14:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

HSI

HSI isn't a good book, and our article on it isn't a good article, and spamming a link to the bio of everyone concerned is a bad idea, and so is singling out a few. So I've removed the link William M. Connolley (talk) 13:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Funnily enough i disagree, so i`m going to put it back, and as you have not read it how do you know if it`s good or not? mark nutley (talk) 13:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

So you are saying that you will edit-war over it? Not really a good argument is it? BLP comes into play here since the book claims conspiracy and deliberate fraud. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually no it does not, were did you get the idea that it claims that? And how am i edit warring? mark nutley (talk) 14:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

You are at 1RR (your personal limit) and your statement was "i disagree, so i`m going to put it back" - no attempts at convincing - no arguments based on policy - in fact just a bold statement that you were going to revert (apparently no matter what). As for where i did get that idea? Well - first of all i read the subtitle of the book, then i've read several excerpts on Google books. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Even if it does, if its a reliable source, there is no problem. I've seen you insert plenty of sources alleging conspiracy in other BLP articles; what's the difference here? FellGleaming (talk) 17:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Where did you get the idea that its a reliable source? Do please remember that reliability is dependent on context. And just for your information - i have never inserted anything "alleging conspiracy". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

You inserted reams of material alleging conspiracy in corporate funding links to climate skeptics. As for the source, the context of, "if it attacks skeptics, it's reliable; if it attacks the mainstream, it's not", is not a reasonable yardstick. FellGleaming (talk) 18:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

That is true kim, you used exxonsecrets in a blp did`nt you mark nutley (talk) 18:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Not that it matters since first of all funding is not conspiracy, and this isn't a forum to discuss such - the enforcement board isn't far away. Secondly i have never "inserted" exxonsecrets to my knowledge - i may have reverted a bad edit where exxonsecrets was part - but i have never added it to an article. Sorry. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Nope sorry FG - i haven't (do try to differentiate between reverting a bad edit, and inserting) [funding btw. is not conspiracy - its a potential conflict of interest]. And my definition of what is or isn't a reliable source doesn't differ between skeptics or mainstream articles. If you are going to continue down this line, then i would suggest that you create a user RfC or start an enforcement procedure - since i'm done accepting personal attacks. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Pointless fiddling

This [3] is just pointless fiddling. I'll revert it when my share comes back again William M. Connolley (talk) 15:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Released, Hacked or discovered

I changed to released here, partly because it's the longer standing wording, but mainly because it seems less POV than either 'hacked' or 'discovered'. Thepm (talk) 23:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but it is POV by omission. "released" indicates that it may have been legal - "discovered" tells another POV story (oh - that elusive insider) - while hacked tells it the way most reliable sources state it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

If we're speaking English, "leaked" is the correct term. "Released" implies intentional action, "hacked" is far worse -- it can mean a dozen different things, and even in its closest context, you hack a system, not a piece of data (such as an email) on the system.

"Leaked" however, means: "To disclose without authorization or official sanction". Which describes the situation perfectly, despite obfuscatory attempts to the contrary. And many reliable sources have used just that term. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 23:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

It was shown as 'released' for several months prior to the latest changes and, at least in part, that was why I changed it. The article Climatic Research Unit email controversy has, as its first two sentences;

The Climatic Research Unit email controversy (dubbed "Climategate" in the media) began in November 2009 with the Internet leak of thousands of emails and other documents from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU). According to the university, the emails and documents were obtained through the hacking of a server.

(bolding is mine)

This would suggest that neither discovered nor hacked can be used without additional explanation that would seem to be out of place here. 'Released' just seemed the most neutral word to me. Happy to change it to anything else except 'hacked' or 'discovered'. Thepm (talk) 23:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

That's it exactly, ThePm. The server was hacked, but the emails were leaked. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 00:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

People who don't know how to write for the enemy have no business changing these wordings. Demonstrate that you can with a diff before changing it again. Hipocrite (talk) 00:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Climatic Research Unit emails section

Hipocrite is correct. This section is now either a coatrack, or so close to it that it doesn't matter. Also, it reads like an out of date newspaper article. It needs to remain relevant to Mann and it needs to be a balanced discussion of events that took place. My attempt at rewording is;

Mann's correspondence with fellow climate researchers was included in the Climatic Research Unit email controversy. In an interview broadcast by the BBC, Mann commented that the "emails are genuine and have been misrepresented, cherry-picked, mined for single words and phrases that can be completely twisted to imply the opposite of what was actually being said..." He wrote in The Washington Post that the e-mails "do not undermine the scientific case that human-caused climate change is real."

Penn State University commenced an inquiry into the matter in December 2009, "following a well defined policy used in such cases". Their report was published on February 3, 2010 and found there was no credible evidence on three of the four allegations and stated that it did not have enough information to draw a conclusion on the fourth question: whether Mann had deviated from accepted practices within the academic community. The inquiry remanded the fourth complaint to a panel of five prominent Penn State scientists for further investigation.

I think it should also somehow mention that Mann had been attacked/criticised as a result of his correspondence, because that's what's relevant to Mann. The second paragraph makes it clear that he has been cleared to date, but any discussion of Mann would be incomplete without some sort of coverage of the intense scrutiny and criticism that he copped following climategate the release hacking discovery CRU incident (is 'incident' ok?). Thepm (talk) 02:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

For now, I've replaced the contentious piece with the corresponding section from Climatic Research Unit email controversy, which was the result of careful deliberation there. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Well done. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

It looks ridiculous, it has to be changed back to Climategate, you know, that word the rest of the world uses mark nutley (talk) 10:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any other problem with the text? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

None at all, just the section title mark nutley (talk) 13:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with the section title. However, having thought about it some more I think the section as a whole is undue weight - comprising nearly half of the entire article - which doesn't reflect the relative significance of this issue. It may not be intended to be a coatrack but it effectively acts as one. Following the example set on Phil Jones (climatologist), I've shrunk the section to a single paragraph, taking out the section title altogether and reflected the four key facts - that some of his e-mails were involved in the CRU controversy, that allegations of wrongdoing were made, that he rejected the allegations, and that PSU cleared him of research misconduct. There's no need to elaborate further - otherwise we just duplicate the CRU controversy article and coatrack-ise this one. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Thats not de-coatracking, that`s whitewashing, with copious amounts of paint. And you seem to be intent on calling climategate by the wrong name, why is this? mark nutley (talk) 16:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

We're talking about a distinguished scientist with numerous honours and awards and many years of work. Dedicating nearly half of a biographical article to a single issue - namely allegations which have turned out to be bogus - is grossly disproportionate. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Not when the majority of his press coverage which gave him his notability is about the climategate scandal. mark nutley (talk) 17:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. His public profile comes largely from the famous "hockey stick" graph, long before the CRU controversy. His role in that controversy was relatively marginal - a couple of the most controversial e-mails were sent to him, not by him. I'm well aware that he is a hate figure on the denialist blogs that you appear to frequent, which I suggest has distorted your judgement. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Mann's involvement with the CRU stuff was peripheral; and the entire thing has turned out to be overblown by the press and the "skeptics". So anything here should be very brief. The idea that Mann's notability comes from CRU shows a very shallow understanding William M. Connolley (talk) 18:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Mann's involvement in the CRUstuffgate is what most people would know him for. I have no doubt that he's a distinguished scientist with many awards, but if you asked Bill Bloggs-Onthestreet who Michael Mann is he would say something about CRUstuffgate. That's if he didn't say he was the founder of the Sex Pistols. Most news articles about Mann seem to be related to CRUstuffgate.

You're right that it shows a shallow understanding and ChrisO's comment that he's "largely from the famous "hockey stick" graph" would be right if it wasn't for CRUstuffgate, but there you go. Furthermore, I think you're doing Mann a disservice by not covering his involvement in those events. Mann has undergone a level of scrutiny that few scientists would ever endure. To date, he's come out of it pretty much squeaky. It's a major event in his life. It's got to be covered. Thepm (talk) 22:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I still disagree with you. Compared to the coverage of the MBH stuff NRC, Wegmann, this was comparatively trivial for Mann. Of course, as the most recent event it inevitably looks big, but as it receedes into the distance it will become ever more obviously a molehill (for Mann, certainly; probably for almost everyone else) William M. Connolley (talk) 07:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

If you are correct it that assessment then that would be the time to condense the section mark nutley (talk) 08:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

It already is a molehill. Mann was on the periphery of the CRU controversy; as I pointed out earlier, the most controversial e-mails were sent to him, not by him, or otherwise discussed his work. Since he was exonerated subsequently, this is a case of "nothing to see here, move along." -- ChrisO (talk) 08:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, before I reply I'll put my ignorance on display for all to see. What's NRC? Thepm (talk) 08:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Since you make yourself vulnerable I *will* snark at you: it is revealing that you know what Wegman is but don't know about NRC, which was the real report: see Hockey stick controversy William M. Connolley (talk) 08:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I knew about neither (maybe, for example, neither redirects). Maybe I figured asking about one would tell me what the other is :) Reading now, will reply soon. Thepm (talk) 09:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, but you didn't ask about Wegmann (not sure how many N's BTW). And indeed you are correct: one will tell you about the other William M. Connolley (talk) 09:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Investigation into Mann by VA Attorney General

I just added a line indicating the new investigation by the VA Attorney General, looking into Mann's work while at UVA: http://www.scribd.com/doc/30755623/Untitled We can add additional sources, as needed. Virnbaum (talk) 06:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I've removed it for now. A primary document with unknown provenance is an insufficient source for a WP:BLP. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Reliable secondary source needed, and note that not only is Wikipedia not news, but due weight needs to be given to the context and significance to Mann, if any. Va politician launches expensive fishing expedition for documents at the expense of a university where Mann used to work, damaging to Va but doubtful if it has any standing as far as Mann is concerned. Quote of the day,[4] "Even Fred Singer now admits they are still looking for the smoking gun. What is it with Republicans and elusive weapons?" . . dave souza, talk 06:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

FOXNews.com State of Virginia to Investigate Global Warming Scientist Mann. Virginia Attorney General Letter. Even though this appears to be real, I think it would be wise to not report anything until the results are known. Q Science (talk) 06:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

As with all things, we need a proper balance. I agree that the original news item sounds like, well NEWS, and properly excluded. However, I'm not convinced that the suggested rule - no mention until the results are released - is a good rule. Ideally, we need to distinguish between RS coverage which is coverage of a news event, and coverage which establishes notability of an event, but I'm not sure how best to do that. I'm in support of waiting and monitoring to see where this goes (hopefully nowhere), but I'm not yet acceding to the belief that there should be no mention prior to the release of results.--SPhilbrickT 14:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Probably inappropriate to titter about this, but it does seem laughably ridiculous and we'll have to see how the dust settles. Agree with Sphilbrick, we need to see if it gets any traction but don't have to await the iinal results. Interesting to note McI's view, but of course as a blog it's an unsuitable source. . . dave souza, talk 14:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Better to wait till it`s over. I suspect this is a political move to gain some media coverage by the AG rather than an actual investigation mark nutley (talk) 15:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

That's a very real possibility, in which case we should avoid becoming an enabler.--SPhilbrickT 15:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

This edit seems like a well sourced addition to the page, but I'm curious as to what extent we wish or expect to be a source for news about the ongoing suit. I mean, this is a page about a person, not about fall out from climategate. I'm not sure I object to the article the way it is, but I fear that if this suit is dragged out, Dr. Mann's article could turn into a play-by-play about these sorts of things. Thought? jhe_iv (talk) 06:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I think we should confine ourselves to summarising it; following the story is more suited to Wikinews. I've had a go at rewriting this section to confine it to the three key facts - the CID being filed, a summary of reaction to it, and the university filing suit to overturn it. The result of the suit will be a fourth key fact when it's been announced. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with ChrisO and JHeiv - this should not become a blow-by-blow update. Frankly, I think the counter-suit, which is really just a procedural motion, is more detail than necessary at this time. Unless it turns onto something major, which is unlikely, I see the three key items as filing, reaction, and results, recognizing that the first iteration of reaction will simply be reaction to the filing, and ultimately it will be reaction to the filing and the results.--SPhilbrickT 13:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I think we have to mention the UVA action (not strictly a counter-suit, btw, since Cuccinelli's CID was an administrative action rather than a lawsuit) since we otherwise have nothing on the university's position. But otherwise I agree with your characterisation of the key items as filing, reaction and results. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

It's misleading just to mention the 1st amendment defense, as the UVa has given reasons why Cuccinelli does not have the authority to demand the documents, so have briefly noted that. He's apparently going beyond his powers under the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act, we don't seem to have an article on that. . . dave souza, talk 15:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

He may or may not be. I'm not an attorney, but I assume that reasonable attorneys even disagree on this. I think proposing that people may have gone outside their powers, regardless of whether they're properly sourced, comes close enough to BLP to be avoided except in rare circumstances. I mean, Cuccinelli filed suit, and UVA has responded. Until we get a final result, my opinion is that the article should be left at that. No opining on legal tactics or discussing related case law. Just my $0.02. jhe_iv (talk) 20:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

A less cynical outsider might think that when an Attorney General issues demands these would be made competently with the full authority of the law. UVa dispute that,[5] and we should not leave the misleading impression that the Attorney General's authority to make these specific demands is uncontested. . . dave souza, talk 20:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

That's a fair point, though I think we should avoid going into too much detail. I think your wording has it about right. Good job. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if it was the way it is now before I last commented, but after reading it, I agree that the wording as it is is very good. Sorry for any confusion. jhe_iv (talk) 04:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

See also to HS book

Links to stuff like THSI should go into SHC, if anywhere William M. Connolley (talk) 19:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

WMC reverted a See also to The Hockey Stick Illusion. Since a main topic of the book is Prof. Mann's work, I believe you are overreacting. If you like, we can go to RfC. --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The book is about Mann, so should link to him. Mann isn't about the book, so shouldn't link back William M. Connolley (talk) 20:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Huh? WP:SEEALSO: A bulleted list, preferably alphabetized, of internal links (wikilinks) to related Wikipedia articles. How can you say that this is not a "related article"? Pete Tillman (talk) 22:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Or, a more extensive quote A reasonable number of relevant links that would be in the body of a hypothetical perfect article are suitable to add to the "See also" appendix of a less developed one. Links already integrated into the body of the text are generally not repeated in a "See also" section, and navigation boxes at the bottom of articles may substitute for many links (see the bottom of Pathology for example). However, whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. Indeed, a good article might not require a "See also" section at all. My bold. Many articles are "related" to Mann, but aren't linked. The hint is, would a hypothetical "perfect" article about Mann include a discussion of this book? I doubt it. If you think it would, your remedy is probably to attempt to write a NPOV section which mentions this book. I think you would find that very hard William M. Connolley (talk) 22:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

It is of course a related article and as such should be in the see also, i`ll put it back in later mark nutley (talk) 11:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

It's related only to the extent that it promotes fringe allegations about Mann. As such, putting it in see also is just a way of including a non-notable attack on him. So, don't put it back in without consensus. . . dave souza, talk 12:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Mann is notable outside of academic circles for one reason only, the hockey stick and the controversy around it. The book is neither an attack nor does it promote fringe views, it is a recounting of the controversy, even Judith Curry say`s that it is mark nutley (talk) 13:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

HSI says nothing about Curry's opinions. If they are indeed notable, I suggest you add them over there. But not here William M. Connolley (talk) 14:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not adding JC`s opinions here i was using her words as an example as to weather the book is an attack fringy piece or not, it is not. The HSI should also be linked to from here obviously as both articles are related, please give valid reason for it not to be mark nutley (talk) 16:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• I must say, it's entertaining to see the convoluted "reasoning" from the !Cabal to avoid besmirching the lily -white image of St Michael here at Wikipedia.... WP:I DON'T LIKE IT. Bah. Pete Tillman (talk) 17:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I must say, it's extraordinary to see to see the convoluted "reasoning" from the !skeptikCabal attemting to link to a smear campaign. If it's not shown by a reliable third party source as significant enough to feature in the article, it's certainly not appropriate to sneak it in as a "see also". . . dave souza, talk 18:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

How peculiar, tell me why does the Hockey stick controversy not feature in this article? I am certain it has been covered in hundreds of third party sources by now. The book has been covered in third party sources also, again please give a valid reason for The Hockey Stick Illusion article to not be in the see also section here mark nutley (talk) 19:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Mark, have you tried reading the article? As for your second point, what sources show significance of the book for Mann? Your argument looks like classic WP:SYN. . . dave souza, talk 19:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Already pointed out above, Mann is famous for one reason only, the controversy around the hocky stick. No syn here at all, just plain common sense. Still waiting for a valid reason within policy why this article should not be linked via the see also to the HSI mark nutley (talk) 19:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• Our article on The Hockey Stick Illusion lists favorable reviews from:
  • Matt Ridley, The Spectator
  • George Gilder
  • Andrew Orlowski, The Register
  • Christopher Booker, The Telegraph

Additionally, Judith Curry has commented favorably on the book, noting that "The well argued allegations in this book, which are serious, should be refuted by the mainstream climate community involved in this research and the IPCC if they are in fact incorrect. And if they are correct, there are serious problems with climate research and with the IPCC," and "the fact that NO ONE from the mainstream climate community is commenting on this (other than a few people over at Klimazweibel) is telling, in my opinion; much of what Montford has written will not be easily refuted." See comment 178

I await with interest presentation of RS's calling the book a "smear campaign," "fringe allegations about Mann," and/or an "attack book." --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I thought you were British. You know who Ridley and Booker are, don't you? And El Rego? Come on - El Rego may be reliable for tech, but for climate science? You're defeating yourself here. GG I had to look up: Republican Party activist, and co-founder of the Discovery Institute. Who speaks in favour of this book rather condemns it (other than Curry, but she is no talisman, and has made a number of gross errors recently: she though the Wegman inquiry was done at the behest of NRC, for example). And why did you see-also HSC? It is in the lede already William M. Connolley (talk) 21:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The point really isn't another editor's opinion of the reviewers. The point is that The Spectator, The Telegraph, and The Register are all respected publications, and George Gilder is a repected commentator. These aren't "fringe" publications, and their reviews are respectful and positive. Do the editors opposing a reference to this book have any WP:reliable sources for their opposition? Pete Tillman (talk) 17:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Do those publications mention the book in articles about Mann, or mention Mann in articles about the book, or neither? Hipocrite (talk) 17:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

All of the articles I listed mention Prof. Mann by name, in the context of his Hockey Stick work:

• Gilder: mentions Mann by name twice (review)
• Ridley, Prospect: mentions Mann by name 4x (review)
• Orlowski, Register: mentions Mann by name multiple times (interview of Montford re book)
• Booker, Telegraph: mentions Mann by name 3x in HS context (2 columns on IPCC problems). Pete Tillman (talk) 18:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you misread my question. These all appear to be articles about a book mentioning a person - making it obvious that the person needs to be mentioned in the article about the book. How many articles about the person mention the book - IE, how notable is the book to the person, not how notable is the person to the book? Hipocrite (talk) 18:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I see you're not keen to discuss your "lily -white image of St Michael" or allegations of "Cabal"[6]. You want to be careful with Cabal accusations: that way lies: well, you know. You really ought to consider refactoring that comment William M. Connolley (talk) 21:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

WMC: please look again, that's the !Cabal = "Not Cabal". Pete Tillman (talk) 18:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

And why did you see-also HSC? - just read your edit comment. You didn't take MN on trust, did you? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

And your reason within policy for removing the HSI from the see also? mark nutley (talk) 21:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Note that mention in our article of "a long-running controversy" (with a pipelined link) doesn't remove the need (in my opinion) to call out the article in question as a "See also": Hockey stick controversy. This is simply making the article more transparent, and helping the general reader find related articles. Pete Tillman (talk) 18:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Note: MN has been spamming the same stuff to Raymond S. Bradley, Malcolm K. Hughes William M. Connolley (talk) 15:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Redact your PA now please mark nutley (talk) 15:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Request For Comment

There is an ongoing dispute as the whether The Hockey Stick Illusion a book about the work of Michael E. Mann should be included in the See Also section of this article. I think it is time for outside opinions on the matter so that it might be resolved. mark nutley (talk) 18:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Neutralized version: There is an ongoing dispute as the whether The Hockey Stick Illusion, a book about the work of Michael E. Mann, Raymond S. Bradley and Malcolm K. Hughes, should be included in the See Also section of this article. Previous discussion started 3 days ago at #See also to HS book. Outside opinions are requested so that it might be resolved. Atmoz (talk) 19:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• reject In the context of this biography, the book simply isn't notable. It might be notable on the hockey stick controversy article though (in a public perception part) to which this links - but note that the comment by Judith Curry so flung around, states something that is overlooked, but rather important: The book has been widely (to the extent of completely) ignored by the scientific community. This is a biography of a scientist, and the hockey-stick controversy is a scientific one. WP:UNDUE here, and (unfortunately) i suspect promoted here as WP:POV. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
• Include – Without commenting on the irony in KDP’s appeal to keep non biographical information out of biographies and his unwillingness to do so in articles related to AGW skeptics, the material belongs in the hockey stick article, not here.However, a link to the book in the see also section is entirely appropriate. WVBluefield (talk) 18:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)